Laboratory Orders Interface
Subject
LOI Initiative
Facilitator
Location
Attendees
Dave Shevlin
Conf. Call/WebEx
See “Meeting Attendees” on Wiki
Date /
Time
Scribe
Materials
6/14/2012
2:00 – 3:00 PM ET
Saunya Williams
Agenda
1. Announcements
2. Use Case Review – Dataset Requirements
3. Next Steps
Key Discussion Points
1. Announcements


eDOS Kickoff Meeting will be on June 19 from 2:00p – 3:00p
Vocab WG update
o Per Saunya W., the WG focused on Vocabulary comments that came from the LRI IG ballot
o Riki M. will develop motion recommendation similar to SPM-21
2. Use Case Review – Dataset Requirements





Focus on column “C” of the spreadsheet for LOI of the Dataset Requirements
Action Item: Eddy R., elements in rows 252-253 “Transport…” – verify if these elements are
applicable to the specimen or patient
o Per Harry Solomon, based on the context of the “Escort Required”, it appears to be the patient
SPM - Specimen Segment
o Per Cindy J., we do not use the current SPM segment for orders and recommended that the
WG take a conservative approach
o Per Sam, only applicable when specimens are collected by the ordering provider/institution
and rarely available in the ambulatory setting
o Per Sam, ELINCS Orders left this segment as optional , except for those elements that were
specific to identification
o Per Kathy Walsh, “Container Type” should be optional to complement “Number of Specimen
Containers”
o Per Sam, it often comes down to the workflow of the EHR - the “Container Type” may not be
known by the ordering EHR
o Final Decision and Completed: Added “” for “Container Type” and comment that LOI to
consider as optional
NK1 - Next of Kin
o Per Dave S., this segment was optional in LRI and will be revisited at a later time with all of the
other optional segments
IN1 - Insurance Segment
o Per Sam, I have seen “Coverage Type” used most commonly as a flag to indicate if patient is a
third-party bill, patient bill or client bill
2/9/2016
1
o






Per Sam, ELINCS Orders includes this field in the PV1 segment because it was useful and we
worked with HL7 to establish a better location; the HL7 guide really does not define “Coverage
Type” as an indicator for bill type
GT1 - Guarantor Segment
o Final Decision and Completed: Added “” to “Guarantor Number” and “Guarantor Employer
Name”
PRT - Participation
o Per Sam, this segment was pre-adopted by ELINCS Orders because it provides the ability to
include more detail of a copy of results to a provider, not found in HL7 2.5.1
NTE - Notes and Comments Segment
o No comments were made
DG1 – diagnosis Segment
o Per Sam, the code set is handled by the “Diagnosis Type” field, not “Diagnosis Coding Method”
o Action Item: Dave S. will follow up with Eddy R. to ensure that he does not have any concerns
with this change
o Per Sam, the labs will only use “Diagnosis Clinician” for billing purposes; “Diagnosis
Classification” has not been supported by a Use Case; “Confidential Indicator” has more merit
to be used as an optional field
o Final Decision and Completed: Unchecked “Diagnosis Clinician” and “Diagnosis Classification”
o Action Item: Dave S. will follow up with Eddy R. to ensure that he does not have any concerns
with this change
PV1 - Patient Visit Information (optional segment in LRI)
o Per Sam, PV1 in ELINCS Orders is intended to exclusively indicate the financial class (e.g., thirdparty bill, patient bill or client bill) and IN1 is conditional based on the financial class)
o Per Riki M., “Discharge Disposition”, “Discharged to Location”, “Admit/Discharge Date/Time”
and “Pending Location” do not apply to ambulatory
o “Alternate Visit ID” and “Visit Indicator” do not apply to ambulatory; “Other Healthcare
Provider” was deprecated
o Final Decision and Completed: Unchecked these elements
o Per Sam, a “Referral Source Code” is not applicable to ambulatory
o Final Decision and Completed: Unchecked “Referral Source Code”
o Per Sam, I agree with Riki M.’s comments regarding ambulatory orders for PV2
Patient Visit - Additional Information (PV2)
o Per Sam, “Signature on file Date” is not used to indicate that the patient signed a medical
necessity document
3. Next Steps


Action Item: Dave S. will send an email with homework assignments that will include the remaining
elements
Look forward to the upcoming End-to-End Review of the Use Case, which will occur subsequently
to the completion of the dataset requirements
Action Items
Subject
2/9/2016
Item
Owner
Due Date/
Timeline
Status
2
Dataset Comparison
/Defining the Dataset
Requirements
Verify if “Transport
Arranged” is applicable to
specimen or patient
Eddy Ropside
6/21/12
In
Progress
Dataset Comparison
/Defining the Dataset
Requirements
Follow up with Eddy R. to
ensure that he does not
have any concerns with the
changes in DG1
David Shevlin
6/18/12
In
Progress
Dataset Comparison
/Defining the Dataset
Requirements
Send an email with
homework assignments for
Community to complete
Dave Shevlin
6/15/12
In
Progress
2/9/2016
3